re: Texas bans straight marriage?

“SOME Texans are worried that a constitutional amendment against gay marriage they passed in 2005 appears to ban heterosexual marriage as well.”

This popped up on my friendly neighbourhood social networking sight and I just had to share: a brief note from the Economist’ s “columnist on American politics” Lexington in “Lexington’s notebook“.

The blog post is brief but powerful, hilarious and completely on point [read the hilarity at MagMe]

re: a terrible Obama videogame

A new strategy game, which you can play (but please don’t) at The United States of Earth (founded by Ron Paul supporters), shows the downfall of Obama’s “regime.” The scenario is like something out of the James Bond – or any number of 1990s American - movies with the evil communists and freedom-fighting Americans. So pretty much what you’d expect out of my first sentence.

The description of the game, which I found in Wired, also includes some responses to the obvious call to partisanship and outright racism: that response is “The Bush scenario comes out next.” Ron Paul is not a Republican, but rather a Libertarian, so this statement is not so laughable: they are apt to be as critical of one side as the other.... [Read More.]

re: high noon at the town hall

UPDATE: There are things going on here too people (here is Vancouver, B.C). Health care guys! Woooo!

Love it. "End of death counseling" PEOPLE. PEOPLE DIE. IT HAPPENS.

Just watched a clip from Colbert Report his insurance program for the show has it included. Betcha most of the ppl who have insurance and are yelling "death panel" have it.

So these "death panels" are only killing grandma by ACTUALLY GIVING HER DECENT INSURANCE.

*pant pant*

Another tidbit:

I read that the percentage of those who agree with "Obama's" plan goes up almost 30% if they read a paragraph stating what is in the plan than if they go on what they "know" already.

I theorize that many people seen at these town hall meetings aren't (for the most part) ignorant and angry but are of an era where one was "safe" to "believe" their news. Not just information, ideas were what you could find at 6 o'clock and again at 9. Many anchors during the Cronkite era gave editorial views - well-researched, thoughtful and thought-provoking editorial views - that were worth believing. This was the intent of news journalism, or at least of the "personalities" like Cronkite: the evening anchor is the editor, the summation.

So transpose this mentality to the 24 hour news/infotainment/corporate news era (I won't pick on Fox News because MSNBC is just as biased). The assumption of credibility remains while the proof is flimsy. Inflammatory statements disguised as questions, pure opinion disguised as researched editorial, editorial disguised as reporting. I am not surprised people are scared.

While the Cronkite/anchor oriented era mindset had flaws, it was based on critical thinking and reporting; however, while this type of news can breed critical thinking, it can also create a trust trap which places the news anchor as having the final (or at least most important) word. If I trusted what Bill O' said like I trusted Cronkite, I'd be yelling at my senator too.

re: discriminating against white males or don't think we are so different

This is frustrating, but I'm not going to indulge in the "American's are so racist and teribbler-er than us (Canada)" because we have our own deep-seated, perhaps more passive nowadays but no less historically blood soaked, intolerances. Watch this and cringe and yet, hope:



I think it's silly to use the fact that Sotomayor called herself an "affirmative action baby" - she's saying that to show the good of affirmative action, not apologizing for herself.

This is like saying it's discriminating to have a First Nations, African, Women's Centre or LGBT Centre (like we have at my University) but not a Men's Centre. Until the freaking globe isn't a Men's Centre, they are creating a safe and empowered place for groups who have traditionally been given neither safety nor power.

And "evil affirmative action" is the most ridiculous phrase I've ever heard. I don't even think Pat Buchanan is evil. Don't be throwing that word around so much, people.

Kudos to Maddow for giving him his say and then straight up saying he's "wrong," "dated" and "privileging race" i.e. is being racist. Shutting down opinons is not the way, but rather responding to them intelligently, calmly and with BALLS (ok, so technically she has none but you get my drift).

I've had it with Conservative Republican loudmouths - let's get intelligent debate going on here (on both sides of the border). They don't know how their own system works (see Glen Beck), cannot maintain a rational,cohesive argument (see Bill O'Reilly), are outright terrible people (see Ann Coulter, who even makes Bill O. look reasonable and may be closer to the E word than I've ever encountered) or all of the above (see all of the above).

UPDATE: Dr. Stephen T. Colbert discusses "reverse racism" and "reverse civil rights leader Pat Buchanan." LOLWHIMPER.

To counter the utter terror and frustration that is fighting to dominate my opinon of North American politics, here is the cutest thing ever:




I'm not tickilish but I understand how this would rock.